Examining The Traditional Indigenous Community Structures Religion Essays

Examining The Traditional Indigenous Community Structures Religion Essays Examining The Traditional Indigenous Community Structures Religion Essay Examining The Traditional Indigenous Community Structures Religion Essay Traditional Autochthonal communities were really structured and the people within them abided by many hereditary Torahs and ordinances. Autochthonal people believe that all their customary Torahs were established during the Dreamtime ( the clip of creative activity ) by their ascendants. These Torahs determined the appropriate behaviors of different people within the folk. The Torahs besides decided which nutrients could be eaten, how nutrient should be shared, people s rights and duties, household regulations, matrimony agreements, spiritual responsibilities and penalties for those who broke the regulations ( Customary Law, Traditional Life, Aboriginal People and Torres Strait Islanders, 2005 ) . 2.0 The diverseness of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Torahs There are about five-hundred known Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander states ( Hamper et.al, 2009, p.58 ) . Within each of these states are a figure of kins. Each of these kins has their ain district, traditions and rites and has developed a alone jurisprudence. Therefore, there are 1000s of signifiers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples customary jurisprudence. However, all of the kins have a religious footing by which to organize their jurisprudence. For illustration, the Dreamtime is of great importance to the constitution of the jurisprudence and the function of the land and spiritualty in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander customary jurisprudence. 3.0 The religious nature of customary jurisprudence The chief rule of traditional Aboriginal society is belief in the unity of the religious, human and natural universe ( Aspects of Traditional Aboriginal Australia, 2007 ) . Aboriginal spiritualty is based on the Dreaming ( derived from Dreamtime ) , Totems and connexion with land and organic structures of H2O. 3.1 The Dream This religious worldview is known as the Dreaming, and it permeates every facet of traditional Aboriginal life. The importance of the Dreamtime lies in the manner it tells how the liquors made and maintained the land and how they laid down the jurisprudence. The kernel of the Dreaming is that every portion of the life force the Ancestral Beings, the land, the sea, worlds, zoologies, vegetations and natural phenomena is inextricably and everlastingly connected to every other portion. Furthermore, through the observation of ritual and ceremonial, worlds are able to come in into a direct relationship with the Dreaming ( Aspects of Traditional Aboriginal Australia, 2007 ) 3.2 Totems An of import facet of Aboriginal spiritualty is the belief that every individual has a totem. Totemism describes the relationship between an person with a works or animate being species, or a status or a state of affairs. In traditional Aboriginal belief each individual s totem originates in the topographic point where that individual s female parent was impregnated with a spirit kid. Spirit kids are released in peculiar sacred topographic points by the Ancestral Beings. For illustration, a pregnant adult female near the site of a goanna will er unborn kid is instantly affiliated with the goanna totem31. 3.3 Connection with land and organic structures of H2O The close bonds between Aboriginal people and the physical and religious universes are particularly evident in relation to land. Land is vested in each member of the linguistic communication group as a sacred legacy from the Dreaming, and thereby provides the foundation for the group s being. Each group s district is physically, spiritually, economically and culturally indispensable for endurance. Consequently, connexion to land is an built-in portion of the mind of every individual within the linguistic communication group. 4.0 The characteristics of Aboriginal and Torres strait Islander jurisprudence There are four cardinal characteristics of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples customary jurisprudence ; orally based, understanding on Torahs throughout the whole group, household and affinity ties and, based on rites and traditions. A cardinal characteristic of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander jurisprudence is the construct of shared ownership of the land and resources. This construct is in desolate in contrast to European jurisprudence, which is devoted to the rule of private ownership 5.0 Ritual and unwritten traditions The rites that each kin practiced came from their assorted readings of the Dreamtime. These rites were found in all countries of life, including faith and customary jurisprudence. In a similar manner to European jurisprudence, hence, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander customary jurisprudence has a strong ritual component. For illustration, ritual ceremonials affecting particular sacred sites, vocal rhythms are accompanied by dance, and organic structure picture, and even athleticss ( Autochthonal Traditions Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, 2006 ) . One of the chief characteristics of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander customary jurisprudence is that it is unwritten jurisprudence. This means that the jurisprudence is non written down but alternatively transmitted by word of oral cavity. Each coevals must retrieve the Torahs and so go through them on to the undermentioned coevals. Songs, dance and narratives were used to assist members of the kin retrieve the assorted Torahs that applied to their group. One of the jobs associated with unwritten jurisprudence is that it can be forgotten or misinterpreted. As one coevals passes on the jurisprudence to another, it is easy for it to be inadvertently modified. To get the better of this job, Aboriginal people would merely disregard a jurisprudence that had changed to the point that it was now unfair. This is one of the chief advantages of unwritten jurisprudence: its flexibleness. As a society adapts, so can the jurisprudence. In European-based legal systems, altering the jurisprudence involves a long and normally time-consuming procedure ; as a effect, the legal system can go out of measure with the outlook of society. 6.0 Dispute Resolution Dispute declaration involves mediation and conciliation carried out by seniors of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Mediation involves all parties involved in a difference speaking through their issues and seeking to decide their jobs through dialogue. Rather than passing out penalty to a individual who broke tribal Torahs or imposts, Autochthonal legal tradition holds that it is better to hold a household member talk to the person and effort to decide the job by treatment. Where a difference could non be resolved through mediation, conciliation would be used. In this method of difference declaration, the seniors of the folk would run into with the people in the struggle and effort to help them to make a declaration through treatment and duologue. Their gray hair frequently identifies seniors, nevertheless, younger wise work forces would besides take part in meetings. However, the seniors in Autochthonal communities are deceasing out doing it hard to include them in meetings. 7.0 Sanctions There are legion countenances within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples customary jurisprudence. The primary countenances include: societal ridicule and isolation, retaliation, contending and contemptuous, test by ordeal and, inquest. Tribal penalty is existing in Aboriginal civilization. Traditional penalty is a subdivision of customary jurisprudence ; punishes wrongdoers violatin and transgressing Aboriginal community values. Theway in which penalty is laid out is similar to that of the Australian felon justness system. A meeting is held consisting the accused, complainant and seniors who decide the punishment and the badness of penalty. An illustration of a common penalty is the accused being speared a figure of times in the thigh. 8.0 You should reason your study with an sentiment, supported by grounds, as to whether the two signifiers of jurisprudence under consideration are compatible and could co-exist in Australia. There are important differences between the modern Australian legal system based on English common jurisprudence and Indigenous customary Torahs. Under Australian jurisprudence there is a clear separation between legal affairs and spiritual societal and moral values. However, traditional Aboriginal jurisprudence is ineluctably based on Aboriginal faith ; the Dreamtime provides the acceptable codifications of behavior in all facets of life. Some countries of customary jurisprudence are compatible in Australia such as mediation and acknowledgment of traditional land. A signifier of mediation referred to as circle sentencing has been incorporated into the condemnable justness system. For illustration, the Koori tribunal, an enterprise of the Victorian Aboriginal Justice Agreement, aims to right overrepresentation of Autochthonal wrongdoers in the condemnable justness system through the debut of justice-related plans and services in partnership with the Koori community ( Message Stick Koori Court, 2005 ) . The members of the Koori Court comprise community leaders, a magistrate and an senior of the community. Tests of circle condemning in different countries of Australia have been successful. Circle sentencing has reduced the barriers that presently exist between Courts and led to betterments in the degree of support for Aboriginal wrongdoers ( Lawlink NSW: 3. Aboriginal Customary Law, 2000 ) . In add-on, the Lardil Peoples v. State of Queensland [ 2004 ] FCA 298 demonstrates the turning acknowledgment of importance of organic structures of H2O to the Autochthonal Australians. The traditional proprietors ( the Lardil, Yangkaal, Kaidilt and Gangalidda peoples ) were able to show a strong religious and cultural connexion to the organic structures of H2O and, hence granted native rubric. ( Hamper, 2009, p.61Legal surveies Preliminary 3rd edition Publisher: Pearson 2009 Writers: David Hamper et.al, Bruce Derwent, John boesenberg, Michael Hayes, Nerida thiering ) There are many conflictions between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander customary jurisprudence and Australian felon jurisprudence. Many of the traditions accepted in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander civilizations are offenses in Australian common jurisprudence. For illustration, For illustration, in 2002, a 50 year-old year-old Arnhem Land adult male, Jackie Pascoe, was sentenced to one-day gaol for holding improper sexual dealingss with his 17-year-old bride.[ 1 ]This was due to Aboriginal traditions allowing dealingss with his underage promised married woman ( SSABSA, Cultural Punishment, 2005 ) . Contemporary Australian jurisprudence relies on isolation from the community alternatively of physical penalty. The condemnable justness system sends people to imprison, sometimes for old ages and old ages. That means that they can non be with their household and can non travel to work. However, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander customary jurisprudence is dependent on countenances such as retaliation, test by ordeal, inquest and other signifiers of penalty. European jurisprudence resents tribal penalty for the ground that there is a important hazard that penalty would affect improper physical force and the tribunals can non excuse improper Acts of the Apostless. A instance heard in 2004, in the Northern Territory Supreme Court granted bond to Anthony, a traditional Walpiri adult male who had murdered his married woman. Elders from Lajamanu informed the NT Supreme Court about the penalty he will have when Anthony returns to Lajamanu ; he would be speared in the leg about four times by the household of the adult female he was accused of killing. Anthony consented to Revenge saying that he may be cursed by Aboriginal thaumaturgy that may kill him or his household may be in danger if he did non undergo the traditional penalty. However, Chief Justice Brian Martin ruled that the penalty would ensue in dangerous bodily injury, and therefore be improper in footings of NT statute law. On the 23rd of March, 2004, Jeremy Anthony was arrested at Katherine Hospital after intervention for a broken arm and leg hurts. He was allegedly in breach of his bond conditions when he visited Lajamanu to undergo tribal penalty ( Mildren, 2003 ) . This instance portrays the uninterrupted job that occurs when traditional Aboriginal people are caught between two Torahs: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander customary jurisprudence and Australian felon jurisprudence. To this twenty-four hours, traditional autochthonal Australians follow customary jurisprudence, therefore normally transgressing Australian condemnable jurisprudence. The two sytems of jurisprudence can non co-exist aboard each other as Aboriginal people may confront two penalties from each of the sytems which breaches Sentencing Act 1995. Australian common jurisprudence has accepted that a individual can non be punished twice for the same offence.If an wrongdoer is sent to gaol, the wrongdoer will acquire his/her penalty by the customary jurisprudence system, either before acquiring sentenced or after. However, this is non merely as this will burthen Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with another penalty from one of the two systems.